| Revision as of 00:07, 16 September 2006 editTyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits →Deletion of material: ''Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page,← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:23, 16 September 2006 edit undoMorton devonshire (talk | contribs)6,576 edits →Deletion of materialNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| Posted on Morton devonshire's talk page: | Posted on Morton devonshire's talk page: | ||
| :''Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page, when I had clearly given reasons why the material should stay? This is not collaborative work, and reeks of meatpuppetry. I expect a higher standard of conduct than this.'' | :''Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page, when I had clearly given reasons why the material should stay? This is not collaborative work, and reeks of meatpuppetry. I expect a higher standard of conduct than this.'' ] 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ] 00: |
::I like Peeps' version better -- that's all. Meatpuppetry? Get real -- that's for amateurs. ] 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:23, 16 September 2006
Develop
This shouldn't be deleted, just developed.
Deletion of material
Two sections have been deleted with the rationale "reduce to relative article size reflecting notability". The article is not excessive in length and there is no prescription that directly equates any notability to a precise length. Content should be judged on use to readers, and clearly information about the book's contents and author will be of use to those wishing to find out about the book.
If the information is inaccurate, then that should obviously be corrected, but there is no notion that this is so.
I would be grateful if this matter could be discussed, before further deletion, as I consider the removal of this content is inappropriate and the reason given does not justify it.
I have keep the deletion of a statement, which is unsourced.
Tyrenius 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just trying to reduce it from its typical overstated Striver-Alex-Jones length to a more manageable size consistent with its notability. Morton devonshire 00:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anything about Striver-Alex-Jones, though I have seen the name Striver mentioned in a derogatory fashion on the AfD. I'm approaching this from the outside, as I would any other article, with a desire to both inform and be accurate from a NPOV. I can't claim any great familiarity with the subject, so if I've misunderstood anything, I would like to know. I feel it is best to leave individuals out of the equation, and just stick to content, though I realise it's easy for the latter to be conflated with the former. I do not want an edit war over this! Tyrenius 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- This material has been removed again, this time by User:Peephole without any edit summary or attempt to talk through the issue on this talk page. It makes sense at the very least to wait for the result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination) as a merge may be required from that. Otherwise my points above apply, and I can't see any objective reason for not including the information. Tyrenius 12:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh I deleted it because it was duplicate from that page. --Peephole 12:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that a duplication is unwarranted. I suggest we wait the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul Thompson (researcher) (2nd Nomination) in a few days to assess how to play it. Tyrenius 18:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Posted on Morton devonshire's talk page:
- Could you tell me why you reverted again on the above article without any proper edit summary, or any discussion on the talk page, when I had clearly given reasons why the material should stay? This is not collaborative work, and reeks of meatpuppetry. I expect a higher standard of conduct than this. Tyrenius 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like Peeps' version better -- that's all. Meatpuppetry? Get real -- that's for amateurs. Morton devonshire 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)